easter, i guess; b/c is occurs in March. also egg laying Jesus is my favorite Jesus.

facts.

You have not included any "facts" at all anywhere to support your opinions. The closest you get in the fact that March is the month in which Easter occurs, but you do not substantiate how or why that has any meaning to your opinion.

Your enchiladas opinion, just an opinion.

A calming effect is an opinion since it is entirely based on perception. Now, if you cited some psychological research showing that blue is in fact calming that would be different. Also, cars can be any color, so that doesn't support blue either.

While I applaud your attempt to participate with my invitation I think you might have missed the point a bit. You'll notice I'm not even trying to "prove" my opinion about those three things, and there is a reason for that._________________

But personally, I find the timing highly suspicious. It was essentially the first thing to happen after the election. That leads me to believe that the people most sensitive to whether it happened before or after the election were driving the timeline (they being the White House).

so these super sneaky conspiring people choose the most suspicious time to have him resign?

The picked the best time for them, after the election, and before he testified about Benghazi with the whole CIA to back him up. They did when they had to. If they'd had the luxury of picking some other time, I'm sure they would have (for example, were it not for Congressional hearings about Benghazi and continued probing by some of the press, I imagine this would have happened on some Friday before a long weekend, such as just before Thanksgiving or Christmas Holiday).

So long as they are clear that they are speculating and are not misrepresenting the information, I'd call them an intellectual for sharing in a conversation responsibly. Especially when they are not trying to convince anyone of their view and instead are simply sharing.

I'd call that process brain-storming, and sharing of thoughts and ideas.

What would you call someone that is against the open sharing of thoughts and ideas in a public forum?

easter, i guess; b/c is occurs in March. also egg laying Jesus is my favorite Jesus.

facts.

You have not included any "facts" at all anywhere to support your opinions. The closest you get in the fact that March is the month in which Easter occurs, but you do not substantiate how or why that has any meaning to your opinion.

Your enchiladas opinion, just an opinion.

A calming effect is an opinion since it is entirely based on perception. Now, if you cited some psychological research showing that blue is in fact calming that would be different. Also, cars can be any color, so that doesn't support blue either.

While I applaud your attempt to participate with my invitation I think you might have missed the point a bit. You'll notice I'm not even trying to "prove" my opinion about those three things, and there is a reason for that.

my point was to not give a fuck about your point and post what i felt like. which was your point.

you can't triple-stamp a double-stamp.

BoneKracker wrote:

jonnevers wrote:

BoneKracker wrote:

But personally, I find the timing highly suspicious. It was essentially the first thing to happen after the election. That leads me to believe that the people most sensitive to whether it happened before or after the election were driving the timeline (they being the White House).

so these super sneaky conspiring people choose the most suspicious time to have him resign?

The picked the best time for them, after the election, and before he testified about Benghazi with the whole CIA to back him up. They did when they had to. If they'd had the luxury of picking some other time, I'm sure they would have (for example, were it not for Congressional hearings about Benghazi and continued probing by some of the press, I imagine this would have happened on some Friday before a long weekend, such as just before Thanksgiving or Christmas Holiday).

i guess i don't see how his being fired/resigned makes him immune from testifying in front of congress. i see that the now acting director will testify in his place but i think congress should still compel him to testify, he is clearly the subject matter expert.

if they can't do that then its a legitimate, albeit buttholeish, loophole. no? which is besides the point, he should be testify on what happened. i still don't necessarily see boogieman under the congress' bed.

But personally, I find the timing highly suspicious. It was essentially the first thing to happen after the election. That leads me to believe that the people most sensitive to whether it happened before or after the election were driving the timeline (they being the White House).

so these super sneaky conspiring people choose the most suspicious time to have him resign?

The picked the best time for them, after the election, and before he testified about Benghazi with the whole CIA to back him up. They did when they had to. If they'd had the luxury of picking some other time, I'm sure they would have (for example, were it not for Congressional hearings about Benghazi and continued probing by some of the press, I imagine this would have happened on some Friday before a long weekend, such as just before Thanksgiving or Christmas Holiday).

i guess i don't see how his being fired/resigned makes him immune from testifying in front of congress. i see that the now acting director will testify in his place but i think congress should still compel him to testify, he is clearly the subject matter expert.

if they can't do that then its a legitimate, albeit buttholeish, loophole. no? which is besides the point, he should be testify on what happened. i still don't necessarily see boogieman under the congress' bed.

At a minimum, it reduces his credibility, making him a "disgruntled former employee". It also immediately cuts him off from any evidence he might provide in support of his testimony, because he would no longer have access to the classified information. It also greatly reduces the probability of any of his former subordinates who may have also had the same information substantiating his testimony, unless they want to also end their careers (we have seen how the Obama Administration treats whistle-blowers, and we are seeing it now as well). The David Petraeus I have heard people talk about would never ask anyone to fall on their sword for his sake. It also allows Obama to appoint a new Acting Director, whom he could use to further suppress the truth, intimidate people into silence, destroy evidence, etc.

Nobody defies the Ministry of Truth.

However, there may be other reasons Petraeus would not provide testimony damaging to Obama. (Mere speculation here, of course.) Maybe there's no hard evidence and he knows that Obama holds all the cards and it's futile. Maybe he doesn't want to ruin the careers of a dozen other good people who might somehow be sucked into it. Maybe he doesn't want to come down with cancer six or eight months from now. Who knows? Obama didn't prosecute Bush either. Maybe it's bad political karma to be a witch-hunter, and he's now actually pissed off and wants to run for office in 2016, and doesn't want the baggage of having seemed to go after Obama and failed (and it's nearly impossible to bring down a sitting President).

The facts remain that the White House promulgated several bullshit stories about what happened, and the CIA's version of events did not agree, particularly once Obama tried to pass off blame on them and/or the military.

Last edited by Bones McCracker on Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:57 pm; edited 1 time in total

You seem opposed to any pursuit of said facts. And of course, your guy didn't do it.

What we have is a box. No-one can see inside it and no-one has opened it, and so no-one knows what's in it. Should we try to open it? Of course we should. However, until we do, we won't know what it contains. Maybe it's a bunny-boiling madwoman trying to hit back at her ex by making him look like a security risk. Maybe a conspiracy to cover up an embassy drone strike authorised by Obama. Maybe aliens.

You seem opposed to any pursuit of said facts. And of course, your guy didn't do it.

What we have is a box. No-one can see inside it and no-one has opened it, and so no-one knows what's in it. Should we try to open it? Of course we should. However, until we do, we won't know what it contains. Maybe it's a bunny-boiling madwoman trying to hit back at her ex by making him look like a security risk. Maybe a conspiracy to cover up an embassy drone strike authorised by Obama. Maybe aliens.

We just don't know.

No. That's black-and-white thinking and not how the real world works. We certainly won't know with absolute certainty until "the box" (and it's not that simple) is opened. However, the missing facts are not the only facts.

We know a lot. We know what actually happened in Benghazi. We know what the White House tried to make people believe happened in Benghazi. We know the revised version of what the White House tried to make people believe happened in Benghazi. We know the revised, revised version in which the White House pretty much acknowledged what happened in Benghazi, but tried to blame the CIA and/or military, and denied ever trying to make believe anything else. We know Republicans wanted Petraeus to run for President against Obama. We know the FBI knew about Petraeus' affair in Afghanistan, back when it happened, and can conclude that the White House knew about it as well, even when Petraeus was appointed CIA Director. And, we know that Petraeus was summoned to Obama's office a couple days after the election and the next day no longer had a job.

What we don't know is comparatively small. We don't know exactly what Obama himself knew about what happened in Benghazi and when. We don't know what role he personally played in getting the State Department, White House Staff, and others to push the bullshit story for two weeks that it was nothing but a reaction to a YouTube video (and the subsequent lies). We don't know who made the decision that Petraeus should resign effectively immediately.

Now, if you want to take those two paragraphs (which are themselves a gross simplification and perhaps include more known than unknown information) and call the situation "a black box", you go ahead. Just don't be surprised if nobody takes you seriously or people just smirk, shake their head, and walk away.

When you feel a swelling in your colon and pressure on your anal sphincter, accompanied by a painful spasm, that means you seriously need to take a shit. It's not "a black box" until you see the turd in the bowl.

More bloviation. There are no facts which link Petraeus' resignation to the Benghazi attack.

Yes, there are. They are circumstantial, but still facts:

a) The CIA gave a different story from the Ministry of Truth, which indicated the White House knew the embassy was under a coordinated military assault, while it was happening. The White House and State Department later claimed they didn't know. So, given the fact that Petraeus has been summoned to testify before Congress about the debacle, there are obvious motives to get him to change his testimony or reduce his credibility. That's not speculation; that's fact. Whether anyone acted on these motives would be speculation.

b) The one happened shortly after the other, as causes and effects generally do. Petraeus was appointed by a White House which knew about the affair and did nothing. Yet now, immediately after the election and while a Congressional Investigation is ongoing, it's suddenly an issue. This is purely circumstantial, but a fact nonetheless.

c) The White House has quite obviously lied several times about this already, so it's reasonable to assume other unethical acts serving the same motivation may have occurred and will continue to occur. It is logical to consider their actions with healthy skepticism.

But, hey, maybe it's just an alien in your colon. The swelling, pressure on your sphincter, and painful spasms are just circumstantial after all, not "proof" of anything. Guess you'll have to wait and see if an alien bursts out of your gut, hissing. No sense heading toward the rest room or anything. It's a black box, after all. You won't know until you know.

There indeed may be no cover-up. But there was no reason to wait for the resignation until after the election yet before the testimony. Also, it could have easily been stated that he would testify at a later date within the year. But you're right, most likely it's the aliens._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

You are thinking black-and-white again. Just because hunches can be wrong doesn't imply that they are always wrong. It doesn't even imply "more often than not". Nor otherwise. A tip, don't go studying quantum mechanics, you'd go mad.

there was no reason to wait for the resignation until after the election yet before the testimony

How do you know? Maybe there is. I can think of one. It would just be speculation though, like everything else.

You seem to to be unable to handle reasoning under uncertainty. All things which are not absolutely certain are not equally uncertain. You're like a walking, talking bag of broken logic.

You frequently show a jumping-to-conclusions reasoning bias, whereby your initial probabilistic estimates and your subsequent revision of your hypotheses are frequently made on less evidence than that required by controls.

there was no reason to wait for the resignation until after the election yet before the testimony

How do you know? Maybe there is. I can think of one. It would just be speculation though, like everything else.

You seem to to be unable to handle reasoning under uncertainty. All things which are not absolutely certain are not equally uncertain. You're like a walking, talking bag of broken logic.

You frequently show a jumping-to-conclusions reasoning bias, whereby your initial probabilistic estimates and your subsequent revision of your hypotheses are frequently made on less evidence than that required by controls.